Student tuition fees

[Tangled up in Blue]

This is quite simple. If the students dont like the Uni fees then dont go. Get a job like the majority of the population.

Most of these people want to go to uni to get a degree so they can get a better job and earn more money but they want the tax payer to pay for it. Ponces.
AND, the average uni student will work for maybe 16 hours a week. So why not spend the rest of the time working to earn money to pay their fees. Cos they would rather go on the **** and expect the taxpayer to pay for it.

Bunch of ****ing losers.

No,it's not quite simple at all.
I have a (PT) job in HE and as a Freelance EFL teacher,specialising in Business English.If I hadn't received the maximum grant(back in the 70's)then I probably wouldn't have been able to do a degree or a PGCE (and later an MA, which the Business School I then worked for, financed 50% of)and nor would either of my two brothers(one of whom went to Cambridge).
All of the present generation of MP's(including millionares like Cameron and another 15 members of his Cabinet)enjoyed the same free education that I (and my brothers) did.
The difference is that they're the people raising the ladder of opportunity after them so that future generations(like my children or theirs) won't be able to enjoy the same privilege they did,(unless of course they-or their parents- can afford to pay).
There is more inequality in the UK(and the US)than in any other countries in the civilised world(cf The Spirit Level).
Why is that exactly?
Easy and cheap(if not free) access to HE is part of the answer.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

in addition to my previous question, as someone who, in your own words, achieved the maximum grant, and is now working in Spain.....

what exactly has this country seen for it's investment in your future and education?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So, bearing in mind you described this as, and I quote , how do you justify that comment, and what exactly do you believe to be the result of the original Poll tax (sic)?

cf my previous reply to Harry(Canvey Shrimper).

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

cf my previous reply to Harry(Canvey Shrimper).

No, in that post you said that the "poll tax", and again I quote...

This one would be all but impossible to "prove" objectively.After all the poll tax itself came at the fag end of Thatcher's Goverment and wasn't even the official reason given for her demise(that was over Europe as I'm sure you'll remember Harry).Less than 6 months into the coalition the Tories are playing the Lib -Dems(Cable and Clegg included) like a musical instrument.We'll now see how long that's set to last.Will it be a full Parliamentary term,I wonder?

all of which sounds very much to me like what you're saying the result of the "poll tax" ISN'T about.

Now try again, and tell me what you believe the RESULT of the "poll tax" to be.


thank you

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

in addition to my previous question, as someone who, in your own words, achieved the maximum grant, and is now working in Spain.....

what exactly has this country seen for it's investment in your future and education?

First off ,you don't "achieve " the maximum grant,you're awarded it(or not).

Second.I've paid income tax in the UK(and will be fully entitled to a (rather small)UK pension in the future.

Third.I've paid taxes in Spain and France(and will be fully entitled to a rather generous pension from both these countries).

Fourth.As a EU(and British)citizen I believe (like Othello)that "I have done the state some service."

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

No, in that post you said that the "poll tax", and again I quote...



all of which sounds very much to me like what you're saying the result of the "poll tax" ISN'T about.

Now try again, and tell me what you believe the RESULT of the "poll tax" to be.


thank you

That WASN'T the post I was referring to.CS like you prefers the term "community charge".
I don't.
FWIT I believe the poll tax WAS what cost Thatcher her Premiership and NOT Europe.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

First off ,you don't "achieve " the maximum grant,you're awarded it(or not).

Second.I've paid income tax in the UK(and will be fully entitled to a (rather small)UK pension in the future.

Third.I've paid taxes in Spain and France(and will be fully entitled to a rather generous pension from both these countries).

Fourth.As a EU(and British)citizen I believe (like Othello)that "I have done the state some service."

Firstly, you "receive", well in your words anyway. If you wish to play semantics, then I suggest you make sure you get it right your end

Secondly, fair enough. Most of us have, but as a graduate I'd expect you to pay above average

Thirdly, last I heard, Spain and France aren't this country. It's easy to be picky on semantics (see point one) but maybe you should learn to read thoroughly yourself?

Fourthly, by paying tax in an EU state you're helping the British government, but only in so far as we don't have to pay an extra subsidy to help them. I wont argue against it being beneficial to this country, but it's tenuous to say the least

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

That WASN'T the post I was referring to.CS like you prefers the term "community charge".
I don't.
FWIT I believe the poll tax WAS what cost Thatcher her Premiership and NOT Europe.

Maybe you should learn to quote, it'd make life far simpler.

Secondly, you assume I prefer the term community charge. Why? Because I used the expression "poll tax (sic)"? I used that because it was called the "community charge", the sic meaning I was quoting your improper naming of it. I think you'll find I have expressed no opinion over the "poll tax"/"community charge", nor of it's spelling. Please feel free to check back on that one though

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

That WASN'T the post I was referring to.CS like you prefers the term "community charge".
I don't.
FWIT I believe the poll tax WAS what cost Thatcher her Premiership and NOT Europe.

In addition, if you believe it was what cost Margaret Thatcher her premiership, then why say it was at the "fag end" of her time in office? Surely that implies that her days were already numbered, and ergo it wasn't the poll tax/ community charge that cost her her premiership but rather other factors?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Maybe you should learn to quote, it'd make life far simpler.

Secondly, you assume I prefer the term community charge. Why? Because I used the expression "poll tax (sic)"? I used that because it was called the "community charge", the sic meaning I was quoting your improper naming of it. I think you'll find I have expressed no opinion over the "poll tax"/"community charge", nor of it's spelling. Please feel free to check back on that one though

Time for bed said Zeberdee.:whistling:

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Time for bed said Zeberdee.:whistling:

Ok, please feel free to answer when you've had time to sleep on it

 

[Swiss Tony]

What about the Met.Police Officer(s)whose truncheon put one student in hospital for a three hour operation requiring brain surgery?
Scum.

Now come on Barnababy thats a pretty poor response for a chap of your standing,my rant was about two pricks dishonouring the war dead,they my exiled Spanish Shrimper are the scum,as for the student who got whacked,very nasty ouch.

 

[steveo]

All of the present generation of MP's(including millionares like Cameron and another 15 members of his Cabinet)enjoyed the same free education that I (and my brothers) did.
The difference is that they're the people raising the ladder of opportunity after them so that future generations(like my children or theirs) won't be able to enjoy the same privilege they did,(unless of course they-or their parents- can afford to pay).

But as I understand it, and correct me if i am wrong, they dont have to pay anything back until they are working and earning a decent wage and is it not still cheap?

When you refer to the people who are raising the ladder of opportunity, it would also be fair to point out that they are the same people charged with the job of turning round the financial mess of a skint country so savings have to be made. It still comes down to the fact that the student protesters want something for nothing. I heard a figure quoted that when Cameron went to Uni, 1 in 7 people applied. Now days 1 in 3 want to go. Where will the extra money come from if not a contribution from the people who are benefitting for it?

 

[Dick Bate's Protege]

Now come on Barnababy thats a pretty poor response for a chap of your standing,my rant was about two pricks dishonouring the war dead,they my exiled Spanish Shrimper are the scum,as for the student who got whacked,very nasty ouch.

The son of the Pink Floyd guitarist should be made to stand next the Cenotath during the march past next year on Remembrance Sunday, or if we're feeling really spiteful, make him spend an hour in the company of Ken Livingston; a fate worse than a fate worse than death.

 

[Hotman]

But as I understand it, and correct me if i am wrong, they dont have to pay anything back until they are working and earning a decent wage and is it not still cheap?

When you refer to the people who are raising the ladder of opportunity, it would also be fair to point out that they are the same people charged with the job of turning round the financial mess of a skint country so savings have to be made. It still comes down to the fact that the student protesters want something for nothing. I heard a figure quoted that when Cameron went to Uni, 1 in 7 people applied. Now days 1 in 3 want to go. Where will the extra money come from if not a contribution from the people who are benefitting for it?

I think is is the whole point... Previously, natural selection took it's course. Frankly, 1 in 3 students don't need, or will particularly benefit, from uni education - how many of us actually use things we learned at GCSE, let alone further education? Vocational training is far more appropriate for most people.

To use a strained analogy (of which I have no experience, but is the closest I can think of), let's take NHS hearing aids. If demand shot up from people who didn't really need them, you can only balance it out by tightening the criteria or levying a charge. And no government would dare to suggest that education standards have slipped under their stewardship...

 

[OldBlueLady]

I think is is the whole point... Previously, natural selection took it's course. Frankly, 1 in 3 students don't need, or will particularly benefit, from uni education - how many of us actually use things we learned at GCSE, let alone further education? Vocational training is far more appropriate for most people.

To use a strained analogy (of which I have no experience, but is the closest I can think of), let's take NHS hearing aids. If demand shot up from people who didn't really need them, you can only balance it out by tightening the criteria or levying a charge. And no government would dare to suggest that education standards have slipped under their stewardship...

This is far more relevant to this argument than anything else, a very large number of uni students go for the craic, the boozing, the social life and because it's a cool thing to do and puts off working for a few years. The studying is an incidental, and in many cases their degree subjects have very little bearing on anything they eventually end up doing. I think it's fair enough for people who go on to be doctors, teachers or another job which requires degree level education, but let the course have relevance to the target job. Too many people go to uni to do Mickey Mouse subjects and then have absolutely no use for them when they seek employment - unless they want to go and work at Disney World of course!

It would be so much easier for students to have to pay to do these kind of courses and provide funding for those seeking qualifications in degree necessary employment.

 

[Firestorm]

The universities have to take an element of responnsibility in this.

In an attempt to feather their own nests in the wake of the last wave of changes in funding, they created an evergrowing number of surious courses. Tapping into the decreasing number of jobs for school leavers, they aided a culture where Degrees became the new A levels and the old theory of a Degree not only showing knowledge in the subject but an ability and a willingness to learn was undermined.

As more money came in to the Universities from thousands of 18 year old willing to borrow for a "good life" whilst they could (on the dole they would not be able to borrow to fund such a life style) the Universities increased the number of degrees further leaving us with the current situation of "degree standard" students working in roles which in all honesty do not require anything like a degree.

I don't recall the old Grant system (with the fees paid by the local authority) getting anywhere near the protests from either side as the current or proposed schemes do. Yet it still allowed for those from a poorer background to go to Uni.

I went from a Comprehensive school background, without it impacting much on my parents limited income, I failed the first year and could not get another year so had to come home.

When I was 16 a decent bank job required 6 o levels, A couple of years later my brother chose not to go to Uni as he wanted to go into banking and A levels were all that were needed . Those jobs now require degrees yet an elemnet of the thinking has been taken out of the job by technology.

The fees increase will need to be such that the government saves enough money to both counteract the increase in benefit payments when the numbers of youngsters choose the dole instead of Uni as well as making a sufficient dent in spending.

If there were more jobs for 16 and 18 year olds then this situation would not have occured, is it no conincidence that student numbers, degree courses being offered etc, have risen since thechnology ,cost cutting overseas competition and overseas outsourcing has decimated the number of lower teir office work jobs, and junior work in industry.

 

[osymandus]

This is far more relevant to this argument than anything else, a very large number of uni students go for the craic, the boozing, the social life and because it's a cool thing to do and puts off working for a few years. The studying is an incidental, and in many cases their degree subjects have very little bearing on anything they eventually end up doing. I think it's fair enough for people who go on to be doctors, teachers or another job which requires degree level education, but let the course have relevance to the target job. Too many people go to uni to do Mickey Mouse subjects and then have absolutely no use for them when they seek employment - unless they want to go and work at Disney World of course!

It would be so much easier for students to have to pay to do these kind of courses and provide funding for those seeking qualifications in degree necessary employment.

However OBL (and this was told to me by a current Law lecturer of a university ) the issue is schools arnt funded nor geared towards providing children with teh ability of creative thinking or actually finding out what they are good at . It's too late by university stage to teach them or guide them on what course they should take , University is about working to become specialised in their subject .

And how many kid's do you know in your school who actually know what they want to do . Also again no such thing as a mickey mouse subject and I'm so disappointed your in education and say this this . IT'S THE DEGREE STRUCTURE YOU LEARN (hear that one Steveo MC etc ) . It's the ability to process define , sift, rationalise information , any information into an academic form which can be understood. Why do you think so many people in Politics have humanities degrees hmm ? (Source Radio 4 Any questions 11/12/2010). It's also regarded as the highest form of though and rationalisation in our society (which maybe another issue in and of itself)

Personally I would rather a better investment came before university . The current fee's system for me is the best we can have at the moment , until tax models like Ten - Zero are finally dead and as many of the holes (which are going now being covered by this bad news) can help fund us (which I hope will include helping kid's decide what they are good at and not an educational system controle dby market forces alone)

 

[Hotman]

However OBL (and this was told to me by a current Law lecturer of a university ) the issue is schools arnt funded nor geared towards providing children with teh ability of creative thinking or actually finding out what they are good at . It's too late by university stage to teach them or guide them on what course they should take , University is about working to become specialised in their subject .

And how many kid's do you know in your school who actually know what they want to do . Also again no such thing as a mickey mouse subject and I'm so disappointed your in education and say this this . IT'S THE DEGREE STRUCTURE YOU LEARN (hear that one Steveo MC etc ) . It's the ability to process define , sift, rationalise information , any information into an academic form which can be understood. Why do you think so many people in Politics have humanities degrees hmm ? (Source Radio 4 Any questions 11/12/2010). It's also regarded as the highest form of though and rationalisation in our society (which maybe another issue in and of itself)

Personally I would rather a better investment came before university . The current fee's system for me is the best we can have at the moment , until tax models like Ten - Zero are finally dead and as many of the holes (which are going now being covered by this bad news) can help fund us (which I hope will include helping kid's decide what they are good at and not an educational system controle dby market forces alone)

Process sift define and rationalise this - you are a ****

 

[osymandus]

Process sift define and rationalise this - you are a ****

That it ! Truth hurts doesn't it . Your arguments steam from self justification , by using your own experience as some form of absolute fact . Guess what , your about as worthless as those you dislike . Enjoy your worlds changing and your screwed :P